Scientific Insights

Charles E. Hansen, author of “The Technology of Love,” has followed the primary examples of great scientists. A student of Einstein, he has followed Einstein’s advice that science is “nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”  Hansen credits Bernard Heisenberg with the concept that our natural language touches reality closer than our best physics.   Others of great influence are Charles S. Peirce, founder of true pragmatism; and Professor Pitirim Sorokin, founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University.

The following scientific insights are quoted from (TOL)  The Technology of Love, Volume 1, ©2004 Charles E. Hansen

Professor Pitirim Sorokin, who taught at Harvard from 1931 to 1955 and headed the Sociology Department there, first used the term “technology of love” in the 1950’s.  In using the term, he envisioned some set of principles which could be defined and deliberately applied to “produce love.”  He dedicated a large portion of his later years to the endeavor of understanding love in such cold terms as “types, factors, and techniques”—and ‘production, accumulation, and distribution of love energy,” as he called it.  He even formed a research center specifically dedicated to the scientific study of love. (TOL,  pg. 1)

In the language of a “more technical” systems approach, then, there appear to be some factors that associate in a fairly consistent manner to form love and which indicate its presence.  In other words, love can be defined in terms of a grouping of such factors.  …[T]hese factors must somehow fall into the categories of causes, effects, and properties.  But it is essential that, as these factors are brought together, they pass the test of a “system.” —None of the factors can be love itself; something cannot “cause” itself or be an effect or property of itself.  And there must also be a clear capability to take any particular factor and remove it to see what happens; does love occur without?  If so, it can be eliminated, for it is not a necessary factor.  No need for excess baggage; systems theory abhors it. (TOL, pg 28)

The minimum set of causal factors which tend to consistently associate when love is expressed will constitute the first part of the analytical framework.  These are termed love’s causes or causal components.  They consist of specific elements of thought and action.  (TOL pg. 28)

This approach constitutes a new definition of love—a definition of both the heart and the head, as well as one of some physics and the more traditional emotional “chemistry”—a definition that accurately delineates loves’ causes, effects, and properties.  As this definition begins to take shape, I begin to capitalize the term Love and each of the causes, effects, and properties as they are defined in order to separate Love as a “system” from love as we usually use the term. (TOL pg. 29-30)

This approach is intended to break Love free of its confinement to traditional “types” and specialized subject areas where murky, mysterious, or mystical vocabularies have been used to discuss it.  This approach is intended to bring it under control of a more rigorous and more useful vocabulary than has been the tradition.  The first step will be taken to remove Love from whatever confinements it now has in the sciences, philosophies, and religions of humanity and to isolate it in terms of its consistent attributes or characteristic irrespective of the viewpoint of the observer. (TOL, pg. 30)

 

Scientific Insights

Charles E. Hansen, author of “The Technology of Love,” has followed the primary examples of great scientists. A student of Einstein, he has followed Einstein’s advice that science is “nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”  Hansen credits Bernard Heisenberg with the concept that our natural language touches reality closer than our best physics.   Others of great influence are Charles S. Peirce, founder of true pragmatism; and Professor Pitirim Sorokin, founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University.

The following scientific insights are quoted from (TOL)  The Technology of Love, Volume 1, ©2004 Charles E. Hansen

Professor Pitirim Sorokin, who taught at Harvard from 1931 to 1955 and headed the Sociology Department there, first used the term “technology of love” in the 1950’s.  In using the term, he envisioned some set of principles which could be defined and deliberately applied to “produce love.”  He dedicated a large portion of his later years to the endeavor of understanding love in such cold terms as “types, factors, and techniques”—and ‘production, accumulation, and distribution of love energy,” as he called it.  He even formed a research center specifically dedicated to the scientific study of love. (TOL,  pg. 1)

In the language of a “more technical” systems approach, then, there appear to be some factors that associate in a fairly consistent manner to form love and which indicate its presence.  In other words, love can be defined in terms of a grouping of such factors.  …[T]hese factors must somehow fall into the categories of causes, effects, and properties.  But it is essential that, as these factors are brought together, they pass the test of a “system.” —None of the factors can be love itself; something cannot “cause” itself or be an effect or property of itself.  And there must also be a clear capability to take any particular factor and remove it to see what happens; does love occur without?  If so, it can be eliminated, for it is not a necessary factor.  No need for excess baggage; systems theory abhors it. (TOL, pg 28)

The minimum set of causal factors which tend to consistently associate when love is expressed will constitute the first part of the analytical framework.  These are termed love’s causes or causal components.  They consist of specific elements of thought and action.  (TOL pg. 28)

This approach constitutes a new definition of love—a definition of both the heart and the head, as well as one of some physics and the more traditional emotional “chemistry”—a definition that accurately delineates loves’ causes, effects, and properties.  As this definition begins to take shape, I begin to capitalize the term Love and each of the causes, effects, and properties as they are defined in order to separate Love as a “system” from love as we usually use the term. (TOL pg. 29-30)

This approach is intended to break Love free of its confinement to traditional “types” and specialized subject areas where murky, mysterious, or mystical vocabularies have been used to discuss it.  This approach is intended to bring it under control of a more rigorous and more useful vocabulary than has been the tradition.  The first step will be taken to remove Love from whatever confinements it now has in the sciences, philosophies, and religions of humanity and to isolate it in terms of its consistent attributes or characteristic irrespective of the viewpoint of the observer. (TOL, pg. 30)

 

Scientific Insights

Charles E. Hansen, author of “The Technology of Love,” has followed the primary examples of great scientists. A student of Einstein, he has followed Einstein’s advice that science is “nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”  Hansen credits Bernard Heisenberg with the concept that our natural language touches reality closer than our best physics.   Others of great influence are Charles S. Peirce, founder of true pragmatism; and Professor Pitirim Sorokin, founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University.

The following scientific insights are quoted from (TOL)  The Technology of Love, Volume 1, ©2004 Charles E. Hansen

Professor Pitirim Sorokin, who taught at Harvard from 1931 to 1955 and headed the Sociology Department there, first used the term “technology of love” in the 1950’s.  In using the term, he envisioned some set of principles which could be defined and deliberately applied to “produce love.”  He dedicated a large portion of his later years to the endeavor of understanding love in such cold terms as “types, factors, and techniques”—and ‘production, accumulation, and distribution of love energy,” as he called it.  He even formed a research center specifically dedicated to the scientific study of love. (TOL,  pg. 1)

In the language of a “more technical” systems approach, then, there appear to be some factors that associate in a fairly consistent manner to form love and which indicate its presence.  In other words, love can be defined in terms of a grouping of such factors.  …[T]hese factors must somehow fall into the categories of causes, effects, and properties.  But it is essential that, as these factors are brought together, they pass the test of a “system.” —None of the factors can be love itself; something cannot “cause” itself or be an effect or property of itself.  And there must also be a clear capability to take any particular factor and remove it to see what happens; does love occur without?  If so, it can be eliminated, for it is not a necessary factor.  No need for excess baggage; systems theory abhors it. (TOL, pg 28)

The minimum set of causal factors which tend to consistently associate when love is expressed will constitute the first part of the analytical framework.  These are termed love’s causes or causal components.  They consist of specific elements of thought and action.  (TOL pg. 28)

This approach constitutes a new definition of love—a definition of both the heart and the head, as well as one of some physics and the more traditional emotional “chemistry”—a definition that accurately delineates loves’ causes, effects, and properties.  As this definition begins to take shape, I begin to capitalize the term Love and each of the causes, effects, and properties as they are defined in order to separate Love as a “system” from love as we usually use the term. (TOL pg. 29-30)

This approach is intended to break Love free of its confinement to traditional “types” and specialized subject areas where murky, mysterious, or mystical vocabularies have been used to discuss it.  This approach is intended to bring it under control of a more rigorous and more useful vocabulary than has been the tradition.  The first step will be taken to remove Love from whatever confinements it now has in the sciences, philosophies, and religions of humanity and to isolate it in terms of its consistent attributes or characteristic irrespective of the viewpoint of the observer. (TOL, pg. 30)

 

Scientific Insights

Charles E. Hansen, author of “The Technology of Love,” has followed the primary examples of great scientists. A student of Einstein, he has followed Einstein’s advice that science is “nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”  Hansen credits Bernard Heisenberg with the concept that our natural language touches reality closer than our best physics.   Others of great influence are Charles S. Peirce, founder of true pragmatism; and Professor Pitirim Sorokin, founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University.

The following scientific insights are quoted from (TOL)  The Technology of Love, Volume 1, ©2004 Charles E. Hansen

Professor Pitirim Sorokin, who taught at Harvard from 1931 to 1955 and headed the Sociology Department there, first used the term “technology of love” in the 1950’s.  In using the term, he envisioned some set of principles which could be defined and deliberately applied to “produce love.”  He dedicated a large portion of his later years to the endeavor of understanding love in such cold terms as “types, factors, and techniques”—and ‘production, accumulation, and distribution of love energy,” as he called it.  He even formed a research center specifically dedicated to the scientific study of love. (TOL,  pg. 1)

In the language of a “more technical” systems approach, then, there appear to be some factors that associate in a fairly consistent manner to form love and which indicate its presence.  In other words, love can be defined in terms of a grouping of such factors.  …[T]hese factors must somehow fall into the categories of causes, effects, and properties.  But it is essential that, as these factors are brought together, they pass the test of a “system.” —None of the factors can be love itself; something cannot “cause” itself or be an effect or property of itself.  And there must also be a clear capability to take any particular factor and remove it to see what happens; does love occur without?  If so, it can be eliminated, for it is not a necessary factor.  No need for excess baggage; systems theory abhors it. (TOL, pg 28)

The minimum set of causal factors which tend to consistently associate when love is expressed will constitute the first part of the analytical framework.  These are termed love’s causes or causal components.  They consist of specific elements of thought and action.  (TOL pg. 28)

This approach constitutes a new definition of love—a definition of both the heart and the head, as well as one of some physics and the more traditional emotional “chemistry”—a definition that accurately delineates loves’ causes, effects, and properties.  As this definition begins to take shape, I begin to capitalize the term Love and each of the causes, effects, and properties as they are defined in order to separate Love as a “system” from love as we usually use the term. (TOL pg. 29-30)

This approach is intended to break Love free of its confinement to traditional “types” and specialized subject areas where murky, mysterious, or mystical vocabularies have been used to discuss it.  This approach is intended to bring it under control of a more rigorous and more useful vocabulary than has been the tradition.  The first step will be taken to remove Love from whatever confinements it now has in the sciences, philosophies, and religions of humanity and to isolate it in terms of its consistent attributes or characteristic irrespective of the viewpoint of the observer. (TOL, pg. 30)